merging in FTM

[RA]

I normally set up a *.ftw file for each family group. I then enter my
sources for this group. When I have done as much as I can on this group I
then merge it into my main tree. My problem is the sources become the *.ftw
file I've merged. Is there any way to get the full sources I've already
entered from the family group file into my main tree file without having to
enter them all over again? I'm using FTM11 at this point, but had the same
problem with earlier versions.
I do understand that the "source" for the merged file is the *.ftw file, but
am looking for a way around this. TIA

[0_Qed]

RA wrote:

I normally set up a *.ftw file for each family group. I then enter my
sources for this group. When I have done as much as I can on this group I
then merge it into my main tree. My problem is the sources become the *.ftw
file I've merged. Is there any way to get the full sources I've already
entered from the family group file into my main tree file without having to
enter them all over again? I'm using FTM11 at this point, but had the same
problem with earlier versions.
I do understand that the "source" for the merged file is the *.ftw file, but
am looking for a way around this. TIA

I'm unable to 'follow' your terminology ...

.. =specify= the various [*.ftw ] files ...

.. =define= your term "source" ; original 'paper' documents, et al ???

.. =qualify= your use of 'merge' ...
... "merge" implies dupes may/may_not be present
... in both source & target DB files.

.. define your use of "entered" ... ?? data entry via keyboard ??

I'd =expect= that FTM thoroughly =qualifies= each new person
added to the "DB" for a truely, unique 'existance' ... yes?

Perhaps, done via a nit_picky concatination of
.. mother's name+BD + father's name+BD + sib name+BD ... somesuch ,
whereupon ...
the DB 'engine' assigns "this" person a new/unique, internal DB "ID" .

Anyone familiar with how "FTM" differentiates truely unique 'peeps' ???

Ed.

[RA]

"0_Qed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

RA wrote:

I normally set up a *.ftw file for each family group. I then enter my
sources for this group. When I have done as much as I can on this group
I
then merge it into my main tree. My problem is the sources become the
*.ftw
file I've merged. Is there any way to get the full sources I've already
entered from the family group file into my main tree file without having
to
enter them all over again? I'm using FTM11 at this point, but had the
same
problem with earlier versions.
I do understand that the "source" for the merged file is the *.ftw file,
but
am looking for a way around this. TIA

I'm unable to 'follow' your terminology ...

. =specify= the various [*.ftw ] files ...

. =define= your term "source" ; original 'paper' documents, et al ???

. =qualify= your use of 'merge' ...
.. "merge" implies dupes may/may_not be present
.. in both source & target DB files.

. define your use of "entered" ... ?? data entry via keyboard ??

I'd =expect= that FTM thoroughly =qualifies= each new person
added to the "DB" for a truely, unique 'existance' ... yes?

Perhaps, done via a nit_picky concatination of
. mother's name+BD + father's name+BD + sib name+BD ... somesuch ,
whereupon ...
the DB 'engine' assigns "this" person a new/unique, internal DB "ID" .

Anyone familiar with how "FTM" differentiates truely unique 'peeps' ???

Ed.

1. Take a family group.
2. Enter it in FTM.
3. Enter sources for name, DOB, etc.
4. When through I save the family group under the father's name i.e. uncle
bob.ftw
5. My "root" tree is called Family.ftw
6. I merge uncle bob.ftw into Family.ftw
7. The sources I have entered in uncle bob.ftw are not entered into
Family.ftw separately but all go in as "uncle bob.ftw"
8. I was wondering if there was some way of merging the individual sources
from uncle bob.ftw into Family.ftw without entering each and everyone
separately again?

Is that better? Thank you.

[Robert Heiling]

RA wrote:

I normally set up a *.ftw file for each family group. I then enter my
sources for this group. When I have done as much as I can on this group I
then merge it into my main tree. My problem is the sources become the *.ftw
file I've merged. Is there any way to get the full sources I've already
entered from the family group file into my main tree file without having to
enter them all over again? I'm using FTM11 at this point, but had the same
problem with earlier versions.
I do understand that the "source" for the merged file is the *.ftw file, but
am looking for a way around this. TIA

I didn't 2 days ago, but I'm going to break my personal rule about giving any
help whatsoever to anonymous posters.

The problem you describe simply doesn't occur. The new *.ftw file brings all of
it's own sources along (at least in ver 7.5) and also the *.ftw source is
added. Your integrated file will contain all of the sources that you created in
*.ftw. It's just a matter of deleting the *.ftw source if you don't want to keep
it.

Bob

[0_Qed]

RA wrote:


..............................

Is that better? Thank you.

Much.

I'd not looked into FTM previously, at =all=.
Took some time to 'look&peep' ...
a bit disappointing in that
.. the FTM "internals" weren't all that well "shown",
.. or explained.

"I" come from the POV(dinosaur) of a main frame "DB Jock" ...
I'm not quite comfortable with a "DB Engine" if I cant fathom the
"internals".

In any 'event',
I now understand your 'terminology' ...
& your dilema ... ;_(
but can offer no 'solution' based on what I've learned of "FTM" ... ;_(

Possibly,
assuming FTM does not provide the function you require ...
FTM's import/export, of a Gedcom "file", may offer some help ...
.. find a 3rd party application that =properly= handles Gedcom 'merges'
....
???

..............................

1. Take a family group.
2. Enter it in FTM.
3. Enter sources for name, DOB, etc.
4. When through I save the family group under the father's name i.e.
... unclebob.ftw
5. My "root" tree is called Family.ftw
6. I merge uncle bob.ftw into Family.ftw

Can I assume[ ] that FTM has a feature/function
which enables the FTM local 'user', using only his/her local PC & local
files,
to programatically =ADD= one/several new 'individuals'
into a local, master FTM "DB" file ( Family.ftm ??? ) ,
these 'adds' originating from yet another, local FTM "DB" file (
UncleBob.ftm ) ,
???

"Common Wisdom" , in DB 'circles',
suggests that new-adds , entered into a master DB ,
whether made via 'manual', or programatically ,
be 'screened' asper the DB 'rules'
a). for =unique= ID only , or
b). dupe IDs allowed .

I =suspect= that FTM uses "a)" above ...
"else" would raise substantial issues in capturing a valid genealogy
"tree".

'Below' from my prev reply ...

Perhaps, done via a nit_picky concatination of
. mother's name+BD + father's name+BD + sib name+BD ... somesuch ,
whereupon ...
the DB 'engine' assigns "this" person a new/unique, internal DB "ID" .

Assuming that the =master= FTM DB has, & uses, a unique, internal DB
"ID",
its reasonable to assume(yet again) that any/all new-adds are
ID_screened against the master DB 'list' of DB "IDs"
!=and=!
the underlying "string" from whence the DB_ID was formed.

IE ...
my 'string' mite be
.. Mary01021900John01021899Ed01021930
'yields' ( via DB engine assignment )
.. unique DB ID ==> 001031
..

Any/all 'ancillary' personal data would be linked to '001031' ...
"linked" in the 'DB' sense ... a 'relational' DB ...

Intended 'new-adds' can now be ID_screened for uniqueness ...
and the related 'new-add' ancillary data can now also be 'screened' for
validity .

7. The sources I have entered in uncle bob.ftw are not entered into
Family.ftw separately but all go in as "uncle bob.ftw"

???
Assuming that
.. Family.ftw contains [DB IDs] plus [related, & linked, ancillary data]
and that
.. Uncle_Bob.ftw contains [DB IDs] plus [related, & linked, ancillary
data]
and that
.. Family.ftw [DB IDs] each/all uniquely =differ= from Uncle_Bob.ftw [DB
IDs],
I'd "assume" that =BOTH= sets of ancillary_data (Family.ftw &
UncleBob.ftw)
wind up "in" [Family.ftw] in the programatic "merge" ...
yes/no
???

8. I was wondering if there was some way of merging the individual sources
from uncle bob.ftw into Family.ftw without entering each and everyone
separately again?

"That" makes two(2) of "us" ...

I'd look =askance= at any DB_based 'package' that would not provide
=this= 'local' programatic DB_Merge 'function' ...
FTM "seems" to have 'such'( thier Merge Wizard ) for Web_Tree based
"merges" ...
why not the "local" merges too ???

Perhaps theres an "FTM" Guru lurking hereabouts ...
perhaps "they" can illuminate, a bit.
I can not discern whether FTM is 'obfurscating' ,
or
shielding the non_DBer from the excruciating detail.
I just 'dunno'.

=Obviously= ,
I've skipped over a few crucial points ...
but hopefully
covered the main consideration ... the "DB" unique ID 'bit'.

You 'raise' an intersting <?> ...
lets hope theres an =easy=, & facile, answer.


HTH,
Ed.

[0_Qed]

Robert Heiling wrote:

I didn't 2 days ago, but I'm going to break my personal rule about giving any
help whatsoever to anonymous posters.

NG email addy 'harvestors' prompt the use of 'anon' & munged addys.

Glad you 'relented'.

The problem you describe simply doesn't occur. The new *.ftw file brings all of
it's own sources along (at least in ver 7.5) and also the *.ftw source is
added. Your integrated file will contain all of the sources that you created in
*.ftw. It's just a matter of deleting the *.ftw source if you don't want to keep
it.

Got me curious, now.

What function option(s) did you employ to achieve the merger of the
two(2) =local= FTM DB files ?
Does it( would it ) detect attempted entry/merger of 'dupes' ?

BTW ...
I assume that the ".ftw" file is a unified "DB" file ...
and contains all the data, indices, screen/report defs, et al ...
y/n ???

And,
at 'some' point in a DB's "life" ,
it mite become necessary to 'reorg' it ...
does FTM provide this function , perhaps as a separate utility ???

Ed.

[0_Qed]

Robert Heiling wrote:

.................

RA wrote:
My name is Roberta. The initials are carried over from my younger days when
I was paranoid about showing I was female on the web. Gotten to old to care
anymore, but haven't changed habit.
Robert Heiling wrote:
There are many ladies in these genealogy newsgroups who post with their full
names. They tend to be the more intelligent and knowlegeable ones.

"RH" ...
Gotta =strongly= disagree with you on "that" point ...
Back 'aways' , when the "Net" was the DARPA_Net ... openness was OK .
Today ?, with today's net population ?? ... think again, please.
Advise the Lady with concern for =her= comfort & privacy, please,
rather than what you "think" her concerns, & "iq_ualifications", aughta
be.

.................

In other words, the merge to Family.ftw will show both uncle bob.ftw AND the
detailed citation for the specific person I'm looking at?
Yes & no. If you cited a Source for Uncle Bob's birth, it will be carried over
to the new file. If you gave information for his death and cited the source, it
will carry over to the new file. However, if you didn't cite the source for his
death, the *.ftw source will automatically be given. It's all a matter of how
complete you were in citing sources. Don't forget that the birth & death can
have 2 different sources and if you don't cite a source for both, FTM can only
fill in *.ftw. That principle applies to all fields that could be cited. Delete
it from the Master Sources if you don't want it.

==> "RA" ,
Hopefully , that answers your query .

==> "RH"

Being a genealogy =newbie= , but a DB_Jock of some 'expertise' ...
some of my comments mite seem critical ... hopefully not caustic.
Apologys ahead of 'time', if I'm "viewed" that way.

??
Is it reasonable for "FTM" to !assume!
that a inbound, merged, UN_sourced, data_element(BD)
can be "attributed" with an existing (source), extant ?somewhere? in the
master DB
??
Makes 'one' wonder what other DB record linkage "rules" apply ...
The term 'arbitrary', perhaps 'capricious', comes to "mind".

???
Does "FTM" publish a 'road_map'(schema) of thier DB and it's
.. record layouts,
.. relationships(links)
.. indices
.. data element(field) definitions
.. et al
???

Ed.

[0_Qed]

singhals wrote:

Back in the Day, ARPA wasn't all that friendly towards females, if
memory serves.
Cheryl

Then too,
not many gals were into weapons systems design & manufacture.

I managed to save a punch card,
filled with carefully written Net addresses ,
two coluns wide of ==> nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn ,
my personal huge "DNS" .
<VBG>

Ed.

[0_Qed]

Charlie wrote:

No, in fact, only FTM and Bob Velke seem to understand the FTM
database.
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

Most interesting ...
many thanks for the 'verification' ...

Ya gotta wonder how long they'd tolerate a customer like 'me'.
<VVVBG>

Ed.

[RA]

My name is Roberta. The initials are carried over from my younger days when
I was paranoid about showing I was female on the web. Gotten to old to care
anymore, but haven't changed habit.
In other words, the merge to Family.ftw will show both uncle bob.ftw AND the
detailed citation for the specific person I'm looking at? I have not seen
that. When I look at the Family.ftw person after merging I only see "title
of source: uncle bob.ftw" and "citation text: date of import followed by
the date I merged".



"Robert Heiling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

RA wrote:

I normally set up a *.ftw file for each family group. I then enter my
sources for this group. When I have done as much as I can on this group
I
then merge it into my main tree. My problem is the sources become the
*.ftw
file I've merged. Is there any way to get the full sources I've already
entered from the family group file into my main tree file without having
to
enter them all over again? I'm using FTM11 at this point, but had the
same
problem with earlier versions.
I do understand that the "source" for the merged file is the *.ftw file,
but
am looking for a way around this. TIA

I didn't 2 days ago, but I'm going to break my personal rule about giving
any
help whatsoever to anonymous posters.

The problem you describe simply doesn't occur. The new *.ftw file brings
all of
it's own sources along (at least in ver 7.5) and also the *.ftw source is
added. Your integrated file will contain all of the sources that you
created in
*.ftw. It's just a matter of deleting the *.ftw source if you don't want
to keep
it.

Bob

[Robert Heiling]

RA wrote:

My name is Roberta. The initials are carried over from my younger days when
I was paranoid about showing I was female on the web. Gotten to old to care
anymore, but haven't changed habit.

There are many ladies in these genealogy newsgroups who post with their full
names. They tend to be the more intelligent and knowlegeable ones.

In other words, the merge to Family.ftw will show both uncle bob.ftw AND the
detailed citation for the specific person I'm looking at?

Yes & no. If you cited a Source for Uncle Bob's birth, it will be carried over
to the new file. If you gave information for his death and cited the source, it
will carry over to the new file. However, if you didn't cite the source for his
death, the *.ftw source will automatically be given. It's all a matter of how
complete you were in citing sources. Don't forget that the birth & death can
have 2 different sources and if you don't cite a source for both, FTM can only
fill in *.ftw. That principle applies to all fields that could be cited. Delete
it from the Master Sources if you don't want it.

Bob

I have not seen
that. When I look at the Family.ftw person after merging I only see "title
of source: uncle bob.ftw" and "citation text: date of import followed by
the date I merged".

"Robert Heiling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
RA wrote:

I normally set up a *.ftw file for each family group. I then enter my
sources for this group. When I have done as much as I can on this group
I
then merge it into my main tree. My problem is the sources become the
*.ftw
file I've merged. Is there any way to get the full sources I've already
entered from the family group file into my main tree file without having
to
enter them all over again? I'm using FTM11 at this point, but had the
same
problem with earlier versions.
I do understand that the "source" for the merged file is the *.ftw file,
but
am looking for a way around this. TIA

I didn't 2 days ago, but I'm going to break my personal rule about giving
any
help whatsoever to anonymous posters.

The problem you describe simply doesn't occur. The new *.ftw file brings
all of
it's own sources along (at least in ver 7.5) and also the *.ftw source is
added. Your integrated file will contain all of the sources that you
created in
*.ftw. It's just a matter of deleting the *.ftw source if you don't want
to keep
it.

Bob

[singhals]

0_Qed wrote:

Robert Heiling wrote:

................

RA wrote:

My name is Roberta. The initials are carried over from my younger days when
I was paranoid about showing I was female on the web. Gotten to old to care
anymore, but haven't changed habit.

Robert Heiling wrote:
There are many ladies in these genealogy newsgroups who post with their full
names. They tend to be the more intelligent and knowlegeable ones.


"RH" ...
Gotta =strongly= disagree with you on "that" point ...
Back 'aways' , when the "Net" was the DARPA_Net ... openness was OK .

Back in the Day, ARPA wasn't all that friendly towards females, if
memory serves.

Cheryl

[Charlie]

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 00:35:39 -0400, 0_Qed <[email protected]>
wrote:
<snip>

Does "FTM" publish a 'road_map'(schema) of thier DB and it's
. record layouts,
. relationships(links)
. indices
. data element(field) definitions
. et al
???

Ed.

No, in fact, only FTM and Bob Velke seem to understand the FTM
database.
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

[0_Qed]

All Y'All,

.........................................................................

Your security was looser than mine, then. Congrats. (g)
Cheryl

Just a bad memory for Looooong alpha/numerics, is all.
Mine was the old "Q" type, btw.

.........................................................................
....snip...

I refuse to wear a burka, I refuse to hide behind a fake identity.
Lesley Robertson

I ran into a supremely =exquisite= , but un_touchable, numerical
topoligist.
'She', =most= certainly,
would have =wowed= Ann Klien's run_way audience in a 'burka'.
The Ice Lady.
That 'you' ??? Hi again. A 'joke'(maybe).
<VVVBG>

.........................................................................

One of the gals was Karen Isaacson, co-founder of RootsWeb. She was
randvax!karen way back in 1980.

(Actually, she wasn't into "weapon systems design & manufacture".
She's an applied mathematician by training, and at RAND she did
dynamic queueing-theoretic models of military logistics systems.)

These days she's working on Linkpendium:
http://www.linkpendium.com/

Cheers, B.

Oops !!
=My= bad .
Design, Manufacture, & Logistics.

Thanks for the 'reminder' ... the "!" delimiter.

........................................................

Good to 'see' that so many dinos are yet 'extant',
that have walked upon tiled, wooden raised floors.

have a =great= day please, all Y'All,
Qed.

[0_Qed]

RA wrote:

Let's just simply say ...snip...

Mite "i" simply say ...
do whats best for =your= personal comfort & privacy ...

"Those" that mite casitgate you for 'various & sundry' ...
let `em ... ignore `em.

"Those" that are totally unable to 'critique' a Uniform ,
will, in cowardly fashion, attack the Person inside.

Have the faith of =your= convictions ...
hold 'them' close, & dear.

be well,
Qed.

[Dr. Brian Leverich]

Back in the Day, ARPA wasn't all that friendly towards females, if
memory serves.
Cheryl


Then too,
not many gals were into weapons systems design & manufacture.

I managed to save a punch card,
filled with carefully written Net addresses ,
two coluns wide of ==> nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn ,
my personal huge "DNS" .
VBG

Ed.

One of the gals was Karen Isaacson, co-founder of RootsWeb. She was
randvax!karen way back in 1980.

(Actually, she wasn't into "weapon systems design & manufacture".
She's an applied mathematician by training, and at RAND she did
dynamic queueing-theoretic models of military logistics systems.)

These days she's working on Linkpendium:
http://www.linkpendium.com/

Cheers, B.


--
Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L
Angeles Chapter LTC Admin Chair http://angeles.sierraclub.org/ltc/
P.O. Box 6831, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6831 [email protected]

[0_Qed]

Robert Heiling wrote:

Your clock & date aren't well.
Bob

Yes, you're correct.

Gotta 'fix' that.

Thank you,
Ed

[Lesley Robertson]

"0_Qed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Robert Heiling wrote:

................
RA wrote:
My name is Roberta. The initials are carried over from my younger days
when
I was paranoid about showing I was female on the web. Gotten to old to
care
anymore, but haven't changed habit.
Robert Heiling wrote:
There are many ladies in these genealogy newsgroups who post with their
full
names. They tend to be the more intelligent and knowlegeable ones.

"RH" ...
Gotta =strongly= disagree with you on "that" point ...
Back 'aways' , when the "Net" was the DARPA_Net ... openness was OK .
Today ?, with today's net population ?? ... think again, please.
Advise the Lady with concern for =her= comfort & privacy, please,
rather than what you "think" her concerns, & "iq_ualifications", aughta
be.

We did not spend the 1960s and 1970s fighting for equality, only to have to
cower away because of a few nutters. Exactly how are women more in danger
than men if they use their real names on the web? I've been doing it since
these groups started - indeed, since the days of soc.roots - and the only
time I've got into trouble is when someone has disagreed with my opposition
to a certain war.
I refuse to wear a burka, I refuse to hide behind a fake identity.
Lesley Robertson

[singhals]

0_Qed wrote:

singhals wrote:

Back in the Day, ARPA wasn't all that friendly towards females, if
memory serves.
Cheryl



Then too,
not many gals were into weapons systems design & manufacture.

I managed to save a punch card,
filled with carefully written Net addresses ,
two coluns wide of ==> nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn ,
my personal huge "DNS" .
VBG

Ed.

Your security was looser than mine, then. Congrats. (g)

Cheryl

[RA]

Let's just simply say I had some problems with being put down for being a
female when I joined into a discussion (on Compuserve back in the very early
1980s) on building a computer. After that I started using the initial bit.
And have gotten by fine until Robert H. (whose input to these NG I
appreciate) said I was posting "anonymously". Boy! Did I bring out the
input.
R - thank you for the help. Think I have it figured out now.
"Lesley Robertson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"0_Qed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Robert Heiling wrote:

................
RA wrote:
My name is Roberta. The initials are carried over from my younger
days when
I was paranoid about showing I was female on the web. Gotten to old
to care
anymore, but haven't changed habit.
Robert Heiling wrote:
There are many ladies in these genealogy newsgroups who post with their
full
names. They tend to be the more intelligent and knowlegeable ones.

"RH" ...
Gotta =strongly= disagree with you on "that" point ...
Back 'aways' , when the "Net" was the DARPA_Net ... openness was OK .
Today ?, with today's net population ?? ... think again, please.
Advise the Lady with concern for =her= comfort & privacy, please,
rather than what you "think" her concerns, & "iq_ualifications", aughta
be.

We did not spend the 1960s and 1970s fighting for equality, only to have
to cower away because of a few nutters. Exactly how are women more in
danger than men if they use their real names on the web? I've been doing
it since these groups started - indeed, since the days of soc.roots - and
the only time I've got into trouble is when someone has disagreed with my
opposition to a certain war.
I refuse to wear a burka, I refuse to hide behind a fake identity.
Lesley Robertson

[Hugh Watkins]

"Lesley Robertson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"0_Qed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Robert Heiling wrote:

................
RA wrote:
My name is Roberta. The initials are carried over from my younger
days when
I was paranoid about showing I was female on the web. Gotten to old
to care
anymore, but haven't changed habit.
Robert Heiling wrote:
There are many ladies in these genealogy newsgroups who post with their
full
names. They tend to be the more intelligent and knowlegeable ones.

"RH" ...
Gotta =strongly= disagree with you on "that" point ...
Back 'aways' , when the "Net" was the DARPA_Net ... openness was OK .
Today ?, with today's net population ?? ... think again, please.
Advise the Lady with concern for =her= comfort & privacy, please,
rather than what you "think" her concerns, & "iq_ualifications", aughta
be.

We did not spend the 1960s and 1970s fighting for equality, only to have
to cower away because of a few nutters. Exactly how are women more in
danger than men if they use their real names on the web? I've been doing
it since these groups started - indeed, since the days of soc.roots - and
the only time I've got into trouble is when someone has disagreed with my
opposition to a certain war.
I refuse to wear a burka, I refuse to hide behind a fake identity.
Lesley Robertson

well said Lesley

I came late to the web 1996 via Politiken on Line
a Danish newspaper BBS modelled on "the Well"
and as the newspaper will not publish ANON letters
we all learned to use our own names and think twice about about sending
diatribes on line -- unless drunk in charge of a keyboard

My home address and telephone number is in the white pages on line and so
what

AOL has experience of web stalkers and facilities for blocking particualr
individuals
but with thousands of duplicated names handles are helpful
BTW
1985 Sep 2 and 1983 Jan 5 are these significant dates for you Lesley ?
on line in the deep web if you know where to look

Hugh W

[Lesley Robertson]

"Hugh Watkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

1985 Sep 2 and 1983 Jan 5 are these significant dates for you Lesley ?
on line in the deep web if you know where to look

They don't stand out in my memory....

Lesley Robertson

[Hugh Watkins]

"Lesley Robertson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"Hugh Watkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

1985 Sep 2 and 1983 Jan 5 are these significant dates for you Lesley ?
on line in the deep web if you know where to look

They don't stand out in my memory....
Lesley Robertson

a couple of birth announcements in "The Times" newspaper database
so anothe Lesley or a typo

<grin>

Hugh W

[Lesley Robertson]

"Hugh Watkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"Lesley Robertson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"Hugh Watkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

1985 Sep 2 and 1983 Jan 5 are these significant dates for you Lesley ?
on line in the deep web if you know where to look

They don't stand out in my memory....
Lesley Robertson


a couple of birth announcements in "The Times" newspaper database
so anothe Lesley or a typo

Definitely another Lesley - there's a lot of us about, you know!

Lesley Robertson
(Abstainer in the parenting lark, and dead end on the family tree)

[Robert Heiling]

0_Qed wrote:

be well,
Qed.

Your clock & date aren't well.

Bob

[Allen]

Robert Heiling wrote:

0_Qed wrote:


be well,
Qed.


Your clock & date aren't well.

Bob

Keyboard seems to have gone crazy too.
Allen